DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Post Emergence Herbicides on Weed Control, Performance and Profitability of Rice (Oryza Sativa) at Lafiagi, Kwara State of Nigeria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Post Emergence Herbicides on Weed Control, Performance and Profitability of Rice (Oryza Sativa) at Lafiagi, Kwara State of Nigeria Libyan Agriculture Research Center Journal International 3 (5): 236-240, 2012 ISSN 2219-4304 © IDOSI Publications, 2012 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.larcji.2012.3.5.1105 Evaluation of Post Emergence Herbicides on Weed Control, Performance and Profitability of Rice (Oryza sativa) at Lafiagi, Kwara State of Nigeria Ibrahim Usman College of Agriculture, Ahmadu Bello University, Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria Abstract: Field experiments were conducted in 2009 and 2010 wet seasons at Lafiagi, Kwara state in the Northern Guinea Savannah of Nigeria to evaluate the effect of some post emergence herbicides on weed control, performance and profitability of rice. The treatments consisted of four post emergence herbicides (450g pretilachlor + 30g pyribenzoxim, 3600g propanil + 2000g 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid, 40g bisbyribac sodium and 1020g pretilachlor + 1980g propanil), two hoe weeding at 6 and 9 WAS and the unweeded plot. The application rates were based on the manufacturers’ recommendations. The treatments were laid out in a randomized complete block design replicated three times. Data on weed cover score, weed dry matter, crop injury, crop vigour, crop stand and grain yields were collected. Gross margin and cost benefit analysis were employed to determine the profitability of each of the control methods. From the results all the herbicides were similar in their effect on weed control and crop growth. The effect of herbicide treatments on rice yield were comparable to hoe weeding and significantly higher than unweeded treatments. The application of 40g/lha 1 of bisbyribac sodium and application of 450g pretilachlor + 30g pyribenzoxim as post emergence herbicides applied at 6 WAS gave the highest gross margin and Cost- benefit ratio over hand weeding respectively and are therefore considered as the best post emergence herbicides in rice among the evaluated herbicides in the study area. There is however the need for continuous evaluation of the herbicides in other to check herbicide resistant. Key words: Herbicides Rice production Weed control Profitability Cost- benefit INTRODUCTION domestic rice production through a number of strategies, parts of which is the establishment of rice processing Rice (Oryza sativa) is the staple food for more than factories in Kano, Kwara, Ogun and Benue State with a a half of the world population [1]. The global rice combined installed capacity of 730,000 mt per annum [3]. production is estimated at 454.6 million tonnes annually It is very important to take advantage of the substantial which has an average yield of 4.25 tonnes per hectare [2]. processing capacity available in the country by boosting In Nigeria Rice is cultivated virtually in the entire Northern paddy rice production. Efficient rice production will create Guinea Savannah agro ecological zone. Land under rice employment, increases incomes and reduce poverty. cultivation in Nigeria has increased from 1,609,890 ha in Successful weed control is essential for economic 2005/2006 to 2,012,740 ha in 2009/2010, while production rice production [4]. Weed can reduce rice yield by has also moved from 3,286,500kg ha 1 in 2005/2006 to competing for moisture, nutrients and light during the 4,080,940kg ha 1 in 2009/2010. Average Nigeria consumes growing season. Weed infestation can also interfere with about 24.8kg of rice per year. Rice importation in Nigeria combine operations at harvest and significantly increase has grown from less than 500,000 metric tonnes in 1994 harvesting and drying costs. Weed seeds contamination to 2.1 million metric tonnes in 2011. Between 2008 and of rice grain lower grain quality and may lower the cash 2011, Nigeria spent an average of US$ 2.5 Billion on rice value of the crop. Weed infestation is one the causes of importation. [3] This high level of rice importation may serious yield reduction in rice production worldwide. not be sustainable. Therefore, the Nigeria government at Losses caused by weeds vary from one country to the federal level is refocusing attention on stimulating another, depending on the predominant weed flora and on Corresponding Author: Ibrahim Usman, College of Agriculture, Ahmadu Bello University, Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria. Tel: +2348034374967. 236 Libyan Agric. Res. Cen. J. Intl., 3 (5): 236-240, 2012 the control methods practiced by farmers. Weed Nigeria. Glyphosate was applied at the rate of 4 liters competition do not occur during the entire cropping per hectare (1.440 kg a.i). After which the plot was left for period. Control of weeds during the critical period of two weeks before the land was ploughed and then competition is important, usually it commence around 2 harrowed to obtain a fine tilth, it was then marked out into weeks after seeding and may continue up to 5-8 weeks. 18 plots with 1.0m spacing between blocks and 0.5.0m Hence early weeding is important to reduce yield losses spacing between plots. The gross and net plot sizes were [5]. Yield loss between 40-100% in upland rice has been was 16.0 m22 (4 x 4) m and 12.0 m (4 x 3) m respectively. reported [5-7]. Rice has been found to perform better Common weed species at the site were identified, under good weed management practices [4]. Weeds are classified and recorded. The treatments consisted of 4 one of the primary factors limiting rice yield in Nigeria. post emergence herbicides; hand weeding at 6 and 9 Hoe weeding is the commonest method adopted in WAS and unwedded check. The treatments were laid out controlling weeds in the study area. The practice is in a randomized complete block design replicated three however expensive, labour intensive and the availability times. Pre-emergence herbicides used was 320g/l of labour is often not reliable particularly at the peak of Oxadiargyl applied a day after planting with knapsack the season. Rice being a closely spaced crop, yield losses sprayer in a spray volume of about 200 liters per ha using could even be caused by hoe weeding through crop a deflector nozzle at a pressure of 2.1kg/m.2. At six weeks injury and stand losses, while some grass weeds which after planting different post emergent herbicides were have close resemblance to the rice crop may escape hand applied which were, 450g Pretilachlor + 30g pyribenzoxim weeding. This necessitates the evaluation of an per ha, 3600g Propanil + 2000g 2,4-D per ha. 40g alternative weed control method that may be more Bisbyribac sodium per ha and 1020g pretilachlor + 1980g effective with less labour requirements. Herbicides, propanil per ha. These rates are based on the when used at recommended rate, offers good weed manufacturer’s recommendations. Hoe weeding was done suppression and increased yield in rice production [8]. at 6 and 9 WAS. The variety used was NERICA –1 which The use of pre-emergence herbicides has been reported to is early maturing. The seed were drilled at the rate 80 kg show some promising results in rice.10 reported that /ha with inter row spacing of 25 cm. Fertilizer was applied application of pre-emergence herbicides produced grain at the rate of 300 kg ha 11 of NPK at 3WAS and 150kg ha- yield of rice that are significantly comparable to two hoe of urea at 6 WAS. Visual observation was used to assess weeding. Herbicides resistance and crop injury is a major the crop injury score using percentage as the scale Where problem in the use of post emergence herbicides, there is 1% = normal plant growth and 100% = leaf scorching and need to identify selective herbicides for rice so as to obvious stunted or dead plant. Weed weight sample was increase rice production and save foreign exchange spent taken from 0.75m2 quadrant. The sample was cleared free of on importation of rice. Major herbicides available for weed soil and weight fresh and oven dried at 70°c to constant control in rice in Nigeria include. propanil, oxadizon, weight for dry matter determination Weed cover score butachlor, oxadiargyl, 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid, was assessed visually and expressed in percentage where bisbyribac sodium, pretilachlor+ pyribenzoxim, propanil + 0% represent no weed cover and 100 % represent 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid and pretilachlor + complete weed cover. Data collected were subjected to propanil, [3], but their use by farmers has been limited analysis of variance, where significant differences existed, because of lack of information on crop injury, efficacy and the Duncan multiple range test was use for mean cost benefit analysis of the herbicides. Therefore the separation. focus of this study is to look at the efficacy and To examine the profitability of the different profitability of each of the herbicides available for rice herbicides, the gross margin analysis and cost benefit farmers and compare it with the farmer’s practice of two analysis was done. The gross margin analysis is the hoe weeding in the study area. difference between the total revenue and the total variable cost i.e. GM= TR-TVC Where GM= Gross margin; TR= MATERIALS AND METHODS Total revenue and TVC= Total variable cost The profitability index, also known as cost- benefits Field experiments were conducted in 2009 and 2010 analysis which measures the rate of return on investment wet seasons at Demonstration Plot of Kwara State was calculated. It gives the amount of profit on any Naira Agricultural Development projects located in Lafiagi invested in each of the herbicides It is expressed as Cost- Kwara state, (latitude 7° 4511 and longitude 2°30 ). Located benefit ratio = GM/ VC where GM= Gross margin Where in the Northern Guinea Savannah of V.C. = variable cost of each of the weed control methods 237 Libyan Agric. Res. Cen. J. Intl., 3 (5): 236-240, 2012 The cost of the inputs and price of the products were treatments including the control did not have any obtained from market survey.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the 52Nd Meeting of The
    DRAFTS MINUTES OF 52nd MEETING OF THE CENTRAL INSECTICIDES BOARD (CIB) HELD ON 12.01.2016 at RESOURCE CENTRE, ROOM NO. 445, ‘A’ WING, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. The 52nd Meeting of Central Insecticides Board (CIB) was held on 12.01.2016 at 11.00 AM at Resource Centre, Room No. 445, ‘A’ Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi under the chairmanship of Dr. Jagdish Prasad, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Since the quorum was not complete, meeting was adjourned for half an hour and reconvened at 11.30AM, The list of the participants is at Annexure-I. The Chairman welcomed the participants. After formal self-introduction by the participants, the Chairman requested the APPA & Secretary, CIB & RC, to present the agenda. After detailed deliberation on each issue, the following decisions were taken: - Agenda Item No. 1: Confirmation of minutes of 51st meeting of CIB held on 04.03.2015 As no comments were received on the minutes, the st minutes of 51 meeting of Central Insecticides Board were confirmed. Agenda Item No. 2: Follow up action on the decisions of 51st meeting of the CIB. The Board noted the follow up actions on the decisions st of 51 meeting with satisfaction and appreciated the efforts made to complete the action in time bound manner. Agenda Item No. 3: Progress report of the Registration Committee, Central Insecticides Laboratory and Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratories. a. Registration Committee: The Board was happy to note the progress of the Sectt. of CIB&RC and burst in to applaud and congratulated the APPA & Secretary, CIB&RC for achieving this mile stone while bringing the pendency at a very manageable level.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use and Action Plan (Persuap) for Usaid Funded Feed the Future Ghana Agricultural
    REVIEW OF PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT AND SAFE USE AND ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) FOR USAID FUNDED FEED THE FUTURE GHANA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND VALUE CHAIN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (FTF ADVANCE II) NOVEMBER 2019 PROJECT/ACTIVITY DATA Project/Activity Name: Feed The Future Ghana Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement Activity (FTF ADVANCE II) Amendment (Y/N): Y Geographic Location(s) Ghana, Northern Region, Tamale / West Africa (Country/Region): Implementation Start/End: February 2014 to April 2020 Organizational/Administrative Data Implementing Operating Unit USAID Ghana Feed the Future Program Funding Amount: $39,556,780 Prepared by: Gerald Asare MANTEY, Environmental and Plant Health Specialist with assistance from Daniel Kofi Agyare and Michael Afranie. Date Prepared: August, 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RECOMMENDED (Place X where applicable) Categorical Exclusion: N/A Negative Determination: X Positive Determination: N/A Deferral: N/A ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS: (Place X where applicable) CONDITIONS: X PVO/NGO: X EMMP (SUAP): X ERR: Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 7 PART 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides In
    GB 2763-2016 THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 3/31/2017 GAIN Report Number: CH17016 China - Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food Report Categories: FAIRS Subject Report Approved By: Lisa Anderson Prepared By: FAS Staff Report Highlights: On December 18, 2016, the Chinese National Health and Family Planning Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, China Food and Drug Administration released the National Food Safety Standard - Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Foods (GB 2763-2016). The standard will replace the current MRL Standard (GB 2763-2014) and will be implemented on June 18, 2017. This report provides an unofficial translation of the standard. Editors’ Note: The asterisk appearing in the MRL column means that the limit is a temporary MRL. A temporary MRL is usually set under the following four conditions: 1. The dietary risk assessment data is incomplete; 2. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is temporary (ADI is used as the basis for MRL setting); 3. There is no surveillance or analysis method for the MRL that complies with the standard requirements; 4. In emergency situations, the pesticide is approved to be used on un-registered crops. I GB 2763-2016 General Information: BEGIN TRANSLATION ICS 65.100 G 25 GB National Standard of the People’s Republic of China GB 2763—2016 Replacing GB 2763 - 2014 National food safety standard Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food General Information: National Health and Family Planning Commission Issued by: Ministry of Agriculture China Food and Drug Administration Issued on: 2016-12-18 Implementation:2017-06-18 II GB 2763-2016 Table of Content Preface ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-E
    Certified Crop Science Consultant Program Appendix 3-E Herbicide, Insecticide, and Fungicide Groups Based on Mode of Action Table 3E-1. Herbicide Groups Based on Mode of Action Group Mode of Action Chemical Family Active Ingredient 1 Inhibitors of acetyl CoA Aryloxyphenoxy propionate clodinafop-propargyl, cyhalofop-butyl, carboxylase (ACCase) ‘FOPs’ diclofop-methyl, fenoxaprop-P-ethyl, fluazifop-P-butyl, haloxyfop-R-methyl, propaquizafop, quizalofop-P-ethyl Cyclohexanedione alloxydim, butroxydim, clethodim, ‘DIMs’ cyclosydim, profoxydim, sethoxydim, tepraloxydim, tralkoxydim 2 Inhibit acetolactate synthase Sulfonylureas amidosulfuron, azimsulfuron, (ALS) also called bensulfuron-methyl, chlorimuron-ethyl, acetohydroxy-acid synthase chlorsulfuron, cinosulfuron, (AHAS) cyclosulfamuron, ethametsulfuron-methyl, ethoxysulfuron, flazasulfuron, flupyrsulfuron-methyl-Na, foramsulfuron, halosulfuron-methyl, imazosulfuron, iodosulfuron, mesosulfuron, metsulfuron- methyl, nicosulfuron, oxasulfuron, primisulfuron-methyl, prosulfuron, pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, rimsulfuron, sulfometuron-methyl, sulfosulfuron, thifensulfuron-methyl, triasulfuron, tribenuron-methyl, trifloxysulfuron, triflusulfuron-methyl, tritosulfuron Imidazoilinone Imazapic, imazamethabenz-methyl, imazamox, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr Triazolopyrimidines cloransulam-methyl, diclosulam, florasulam, flumetsulam, metosulam, penoxsulam Pyrimidinyl(thio)benzoates bispyribac-Na, pyribenzoxim, pyriftalid, pyrithiobac-Na, pyriminobac-methyl Sulfonylaminocarbonyl- flucarbazone-Na, procarbazone-Na
    [Show full text]
  • Illegal Pesticide Trade in the Mekong Countries: Case of Lao Pdr
    ILLEGAL PESTICIDE TRADE IN THE MEKONG COUNTRIES: CASE OF LAO PDR Vientiane Capital and provinces of Louang Namtha and Xiengkhouang By Chela Vázquez Pesticides on the left counter sold with other stuff, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR Reports on the increasing use of pesticides in Lao PDR (van der Wulp 2006; Lao-FAO IPM and FAO Pesticide Risk Reduction Programme 2009, 2011; FAO IPM Vegetable Regional Programme 2010) have raised the alarm about the use of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) by farmers wearing little or no protection. Some of these pesticides, i.e., paraquat and methomyl, have been banned in the country. Lao does not produce active ingredients or pesticide formulations. Nearly all pesticides sold and used in Lao originate from Thailand and China, and to some extent from Vietnam. Lao, as with most non-industrialized countries, lacks the technology to dispose of pesticides safely. Thus, enforcing pesticide regulations, for example by confiscating illegal pesticides, becomes a challenge in the absence of adequate technology to dispose of hazardous products. Regional cooperation among countries is needed, especially from the pesticide manufacturing countries in order to protect communities from toxic chemicals and to enforce national laws. Pesticide manufacturing countries should take measures to both 1) prevent exports of pesticides to countries which have banned them, and 2) accept returned chemicals from countries where they have been confiscated by government authorities. The Strategic Approach on International Chemicals Management (SAICM) offers an adequate framework to advance an international policy mechanism to curtail the illegal flow of pesticides. Furthermore, international donors and development agencies should support government policies that promote sustainable agriculture, free of hazardous chemicals, which reduces the incentive for illegal trade.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2016/115709 Al 28 July 2016 (28.07.2016) W P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2016/115709 Al 28 July 2016 (28.07.2016) W P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every A01N 43/42 (2006.01) A01N 43/76 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, A01N 47/36 (2006.01) A01N 43/40 (2006.01) AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, A01N 43/54 (2006.01) A01N 43/78 (2006.01) BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, A 39/04 (2006.01) A01P 13/00 (2006.01) DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, (21) International Application Number: KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, PCT/CN20 15/07 1348 MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, (22) International Filing Date: PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, 22 January 2015 (22.01 .2015) SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (25) Filing Language: English (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every (26) Publication Language: English kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, (71) Applicant: HICAP FORMULATIONS (HONG KONG) GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, ST, SZ, LTD.
    [Show full text]
  • Farmer to Farmer Programmatic Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe
    RAISE PLUS-Limited scope of work IQC FARMER TO FARMER PROGRAMMATIC PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT AND SAFE USE ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) i Contract No.: AEG-I-18-04-00010-00 Prepared: December 2009 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii PROGRAMMATIC PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT and SAFE USE ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) Activity Location: Global: activities in over 30 countries including Egypt, Lebanon, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Serbia, Uzbekistan, Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, South Africa, Belarus, Dominic, Grenada, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Sumatra, Ethiopia, Uganda, St. Kitts and Nevis Activity Title: John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Volunteer Programs Life of Project: FY 2009-FY 2013 Program Funding: $75 million iii Contents Pesticide Evaluation Report ........................................................................................................................ 1 Summary of Findings ..............................................................................................................................................3 Summary of Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2010/147966 Al
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date 23 December 2010 (23.12.2010) WO 2010/147966 Al (51) International Patent Classification: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every AOlN 43/80 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BR, BW, BY, BZ, (21) International Application Number: CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DO, PCT/US2010/038646 DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, (22) International Filing Date: HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, 15 June 2010 (15.06.2010) KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, (25) Filing Language: English NO, NZ, OM, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, RU, SC, SD, (26) Publication Language: English SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (30) Priority Data: 61/187,054 15 June 2009 (15.06.2009) US (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, (71) Applicant (for all designated States except US): ACCU- GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, SD, SL, SZ, TZ, UG, FORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC [US/US]; 3225 Dem- ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, MD, RU, TJ, ing Way, Suite 140B, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 (US).
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Pesticide Chemicals
    Glossary of Pesticide Chemicals October 2001 Table of Contents Glossary Index A.................................................4 A...............................................10 B.................................................9 B...............................................12 C...............................................16 C................................................14 D...............................................29 D...............................................18 E...............................................41 E...................................................21 F................................................46 F................................................23 G...............................................58 G................................................24 H...............................................60 H...............................................25 I................................................62 I.................................................26 J................................................68 J................................................26 K...............................................68 K...............................................26 L................................................68 L................................................27 M...............................................69 M...............................................27 N...............................................79 N...............................................30 O................................................82
    [Show full text]
  • Synergistic Herbicidal Composition Containing Aminopyralid and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    (19) TZZ ¥_T (11) EP 2 528 439 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: A01N 43/40 (2006.01) A01N 39/04 (2006.01) 25.11.2015 Bulletin 2015/48 A01P 13/00 (2006.01) (21) Application number: 11702118.8 (86) International application number: PCT/US2011/022690 (22) Date of filing: 27.01.2011 (87) International publication number: WO 2011/094388 (04.08.2011 Gazette 2011/31) (54) SYNERGISTIC HERBICIDAL COMPOSITION CONTAINING AMINOPYRALID AND 2,4- DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID SYNERGISTISCHE HERBIZIDZUSAMMENSETZUNG MIT AMINOPYRALID UND 2,4- DICHLORPHENOXYACETYLSÄURE COMPOSITION HERBICIDE SYNERGIQUE CONTENANT DE L’AMINOPYRALIDE ET DE L’ACIDE 2,4-DICHLOROPHÉNOXYACÉTIQUE (84) Designated Contracting States: (56) References cited: AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB WO-A1-2011/082162 US-A1- 2009 325 803 GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR • KRISTIN K. PAYNE ET AL: "Impact of Herbicides and Application Timing on Weed Control, Yield, (30) Priority: 29.01.2010 US 299517 P and Nutritive Value of Tall Fescue Pastures and Hayfields", WEED TECHNOLOGY, vol. 24, no. 4, (43) Date of publication of application: 1 October 2010 (2010-10-01), pages 515-522, 05.12.2012 Bulletin 2012/49 XP55016239, ISSN: 0890-037X, DOI: 10.1614/WT- D-10-00039.1 (73) Proprietor: Dow AgroSciences, LLC • STEPHEN F. ENLOE ET AL: "Russian Knapweed Indianapolis, IN 46268 (US) (Acroptilon repens) Control with Low Rates of Aminopyralid on Range and Pasture", INVASIVE (72) Inventor: CARRANZA GARZON, Nelson PLANT SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, vol.
    [Show full text]